See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228411535

Information Literacy and Learning

Chapter · January 2005

CITATIONS READS
2 6,995

5 authors, including:

Sirje Virkus Albert Boekhorst

Tallinn University University of Pretoria
98 PUBLICATIONS   528 CITATIONS    36 PUBLICATIONS   106 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

José-Antonio Gómez-Hernández
University of Murcia
166 PUBLICATIONS   420 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Promoción e imagen social de las bibliotecas View project

Bibliotecas y competencias informacionales y digitales. Las alfabetizaciones View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sirje Virkus on 20 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 65

3 Information Literacy and Learning

Sirje Virkus
Albert K. Boekhorst
José A. Gomez-Hernandez
Annette Skov
Sheila Webber

Introduction

This chapter is based on discussions which took place in the virtual workshop and the
face-to-face (F-2-F) workshop on information literacy and learning. The virtual forum
took place from May to August 2005 and face-to-face workshop on August 11-12, 2005
in Copenhagen. The goal of the workshops was to discuss the most relevant issues on the
topic “Information Literacy and Learning” in connection with Library and Information
Science (LIS) curriculum in the context of the Bologna process. The structure and logic
of the virtual and F-2-F workshops were similar in all twelve workshops within the
SOCRATES-funded project "LIS Education in Europe: Joint Curriculum Development
and Bologna Perspectives". The list of the members of the virtual and F-2-F workshop
group on information literacy and learning is included as Appendix 1.

The participants of the workshops addressed the following questions:

• How should we define information literacy (IL) in connection with LIS
curriculum?
• How should IL be positioned in LIS curriculum?
• How should learning to become “information literate” and learning to facilitate
learning of IL be delivered in LIS schools?
• What topics form the curriculum for IL and learning?
• What approaches, strategies and actions have LIS schools implemented in
integrating/embedding IL into LIS curriculum?
• What are the examples of best practice of facilitating IL within the LIS
curriculum?
• How has the Bologna process influenced IL and LIS curriculum in different
countries?
• What communication and networks for LIS educators in IL domain exist?
• What kind of research agenda we need in connection with IL and LIS curriculum?

The topics discussed in the virtual and F-2-F workshops are reflected in the following
sections: the definition and importance of information literacy, how learning to become
“information literate” and learning to facilitate learning of IL should be delivered in LIS
schools, what topics form the curriculum for IL and learning, examples of IL practice,
communication and networks for LIS educators in IL domain and research agenda for IL.
 66

Definition of information literacy

The members of the virtual forum agreed that a broad definition of IL from the Prague
Declaration, the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP), the
American Library Association (ALA), Webber and Johnston or Boekhorst were most
useful in general and as a working definition for the purpose of the forum.

For example:

“Information Literacy encompasses knowledge of one’s information concerns and needs,

and the ability to identify, locate, evaluate, organize and effectively create, use and
communicate information to address issues or problems at hand; it is a prerequisite for
participating effectively in the Information Society, and is part of the basic human right of
life long learning" (Information Literacy Meeting of Experts, 2003)

“Information literacy is knowing when and why you need information, where to find it, and
how to evaluate, use and communicate it in an ethical manner” (CILIP, 2005).

“To be information literate, a person must be able to recognise when information is needed
and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information"
(American Library Association, 1998)

“Information literacy is the adoption of appropriate information behaviour to obtain,

through whatever channel or medium, information well fitted to information needs,
together with critical awareness of the importance of wise and ethical use of information in
society" (Johnston and Webber, 2003).

“... all these literacies [basic literacy, scientific literacy, technological literacy, visual
literacy, cultural literacy] can be considered as specific competences that belong under the
information literacy umbrella. Therefore information literacy should be considered as a
container concept, which refers to competences of people to recognize the need for
information and to satisfy their information needs for survival, self-actualisation and
development” (Boekhorst, 2003a).

Boekhorst (2003a) summarises the definitions and descriptions which have been
presented over many years into three concepts: (1) the ICT concept; (2) the information
(re)sources concept; and (3) the information process concept. However, not all
participants agree with his statement and argue that these three concepts do not include
all dimensions of IL.

It was also agreed that the term ‘information literacy’ is the wider and more suitable term
than ‘information skills’ to carry the meaning of the concept.

Thus, the working definition of IL that guided discussions in the virtual forum on IL and
learning was broad, and could be seen as an umbrella definition that included many other
literacies and implied business as well as private life in the context of lifelong
independent and flexible learning.
 67

Importance of information literacy

It was agreed that IL is absolutely critical literacy to all sectors of society and that it
enables people to cope successfully in their professional and personal lives and benefit
from the knowledge society. Boekhorst (2003b) highlights the technization,
differentiation and globalisation process of our modern society and notes that in this
process we see the following effects related to information flows: (1) a exponential
growth of information, information media, information channels and information services
(2) a growth of technology, tools and applications to retrieve, process and disseminate
information (3) changes in communication patterns and behaviour. Thus, while people
move forward through time and space (Dervin & Nilan, 1986) they need knowledge:
knowledge on themselves and on their social and technical surrounding. While moving
forward people are confronted with the fact that their knowledge is not enough to go on
with their activity, to make decisions or start a new activity. There is a knowledge gap
and an information need. Such a situation can arise because something changes in a
person or in his or her surroundings. Depending on the importance of the situation and
the degree of uncertainty, a person will search for information to satisfy an information
need, to reduce uncertainty and update his or her knowledge. In this way people can
survive, develop themselves, perform tasks and relax.

The process of recognising and identifying an information need, and of locating,

accessing, retrieving, using and disseminating information has been presented by
Boekhorst (2003b) in the following way in Figure 1

Figure 1. Information literacy model

Boekhorst (2003a) also provides a framework for information literacy/illiteracy in

information-rich versus information-poor contexts.
 68

Figure 2 Information Rich – Information Poor

Boekhorst (2003a) notes that being information literate must be learned. ‘Parents’ are the
first who implicitly and explicitly facilitate their children’s learning of information.
Becoming information literate should continue at primary school and be a part of formal
training in all phases and all subject areas during the whole education process as a
preparation for lifelong learning. Although a difference can be made between content and
conduit, becoming information literate can only be learned effectively in context.
Therefore in each phase of schooling in each subject explicit attention has to be given to
IL aspects. In this way students are prepared for a lifelong learning process. That means
that all educational staff have to learn how to integrate IL into their teaching.

The teaching and learning of information literacy within LIS

curriculum

Library and information professionals too have a specific function in the process in which
people become information literate. They facilitate access to information and help people
to satisfy their information needs. Facilitating people to become better independent
information users is one of their tasks. They too have to learn to do this effectively.

It was contended that it is essential for LIS students:

1. To be aware of information literacy as a concept;
2. To become information literate themselves;
3. To learn about some key aspects of teaching information literacy.

It was highlighted that being information literate is a necessity for information

professionals because it helps them maintain a lifelong learning attitude that keeps them
abreast of an ever changing information environment, while at the same time it enables
 69

them to develop as facilitators of learning to help users become information literate. LIS
students need to understand THEMSELVES as information literate people, and
understand IL holistically, before they can start teaching someone else about it. Perhaps
some educators have an underlying assumption that LIS students become information
literate by studying library and information science? It’s not necessarily so!

IL itself may be taught through a separate class, or may be covered explicitly in one or
more other LIS classes (e.g. together with Information Retrieval or Knowledge
Management), or may be seen as an approach to learning which is used in another class,
or may be addressed as part of a class which focuses on how to teach IL. Different
lecturers as well as workshop members argue in favour of one approach or another, but
there are successful examples of all these strategies. Decisions on which option is
adopted will probably be based on factors such as: the objectives of the whole
programme, the length of the programme, the national/institutional context and priorities,
the nature of the student body, and the teacher’s pedagogic approach and philosophy.

Whatever the model preferred, teaching and learning methods should reflect the essence
of IL. It is often said that IL is about learning and learning how to learn; the teaching and
learning of IL should reflect this. The teaching of IL should be a model for good teaching
practices; to teach IL using a spoon feeding, passive knowledge-transmitting approach is
self-contradictory. As IL is all about critical analysis, independent learning, problem-
solving, reflective thinking and ethical use of information, an inquiry-driven, knowledge
construction approach exposing students to a “deep approach” to learning is the most
appropriate.

Annette Skov summarises discussions in the forum and her experiences in teaching IL as
a number of guidelines for designing a learning environment for IL that can be derived
from these principles:

• It should allow students to be at the centre of the learning process engaging with
learning resources in an active and reflective way. The learning environment
should provide room for reflection: reflection on IL issues, and self-reflection on
learning experiences and progress. Teaching is about getting a “hook” into the
individual student’s life project; by encouraging reflection, students are asked to
consider: is this learning experience important to my life project? What can I learn
that will prove useful to me in the future and help me accomplish my goals?

• A number of topics in the IL curriculum lend themselves to active investigation;

reading about theories is useful, but being actively involved with theories is even
more useful. For instance, the concept of learning styles is usually a topic
addressed in IL teaching. Let students work in teams organised according to
different learning styles. Kolb’s theory on the Experiential Learning Cycle shows
that people learn through concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract
conceptualisation and active experimentation. Let students be exposed explicitly
to this way of planning a learning experience. Schön’s “The reflective
 70

practitioner” and “reflection-on-action” can be studied in a textbook, but why not

invite reflective practitioners to share their reflections with students?

• Students’ past experiences should be recognised and discussed – they have been
learners most of their lives, and they bring with them a body of knowledge on
their own learning histories that should be drawn upon, discussed and challenged.

• The acquisition of “additional” competences should be encouraged. ICT

competences can be enhanced by creating digital portfolios; social and
communicative competences by engaging in collaborative work; network
competences by taking part in virtual learning environments; and problem solving
competences by adopting a problem based learning approach.

• Project work should be concerned with real-life situations and problems. If the
objective is to teach students to facilitate learning of information literacy, they
should plan a teaching sequence, outlining choice of target group and topic,
learning environment, perception of learning, pedagogical and didactic
considerations – and actually teach the sequence.

• The lecturer teaching IL should be a designer of the learning environment, a guide

on the side, a coach and a motivator, and not a transmitter of knowledge.

An assessment is a necessary element of IL. The assessment practice should be aligned

with the pedagogical thinking underpinning the teaching and learning of IL, and
appropriate for the learning outcomes that have been set for the assignment or module.
Assessments can be formative or summative; as students’ reflections on their learning
processes are considered important, formative assessment should be used to give
feedback to students. A room for reflection can be created quite literally by asking
students to create digital portfolios or weblogs to host their assignments and reflections.
The summative assessment should assess both the process and the products, i.e. the
student’s learning process and self-reflection, and the accomplishment of the products in
terms of learning outcomes. Critical self-evaluation and self-assessment of performance
is an essential quality of the lifelong learner. Unless students are encouraged to take at
least some responsibility for their own assessment they are unlikely to reach their full
potential as creative, productive learners in the workplace or community. This requires,
however, that students are involved in setting and understanding criteria for assessment
(Candy et al, 1994).

Topics forming the curriculum for information literacy and

learning

The depth of coverage of IL topics will vary depending on the nature of the course. Sheila
Webber summarises firstly key topics for IL, and secondly topics concerned with the
subject of teaching IL. In doing this she referred to key frameworks for IL drawn up by
 71

professional associations, discussions in the virtual and F-2-F forums, and selected LIS
curricula in information literacy and learning.

Curriculum for Information literacy

A number of associations have produced detailed frameworks describing desired
characteristics or outcomes for the information literate person. These include the ACRL
(Association of College and Research Libraries, 2000) Information Literacy Competency
Standards for Higher Education developed in the United States, the Australian and New
Zealand Information Literacy Framework (Bundy, 2004) and the Seven Pillars of
Information Literacy model produced by the United Kingdom’s Society for College,
National and University Libraries (SCONUL Task Force on Information Skills, 1999).
The ACRL standards have also been translated into other languages (e.g. Homann, 2002)
and at time of writing the Information Literacy Section of the International Federation of
Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) was about to publish an international
manual for IL. Some of these documents, in particular the ACRL standards go into a
good deal of detail about the desired learning outcomes for an information literate person,
and that material is not duplicated here. Instead the areas covered by all the key standards
are highlighted, as follows.

The LIS student should:

• Be able to recognise when he/she needs information, to identify the nature of the
information need, and what the gap is between what he/she knows and what
he/she needs.
• Be aware of what different channels and sources are available, be able to identify
the appropriate resources for a particular information need, and use these
resources effectively to acquire the needed information.
• Be able to evaluate information effectively.
• Be able to manage and apply information.
• Be able to synthesize information and use it to create new knowledge and
understanding.
• Be aware of the cultural, ethical, economic, legal, and social issues surrounding
the use of information.

Additional important skills, knowledge and attitudes are highlighted in other prominent
statements, for example the Prague Declaration (Information Literacy Meeting of
Experts, 2003), or were identified as important for LIS students in discussion that took
place as part of this project. These skills, knowledge and attitudes are summarised as
follows:

The LIS student should:

• Understand key definitions and models of IL, including similarities and
differences between them;
• Be aware of different contexts (e.g. social life, workplace, education, private life)
for information literacy, and understand the implications for IL in these different
contexts;
 72

• Be able to distinguish the relationship of IL with other literacies (e.g. media

literacy, IT literacy) and understand the importance of basic literacy skills in
underpinning IL;
• Understand the relationship between IL and other LIS skill and knowledge areas
(e.g. Knowledge Management, Information Retrieval);
• Understand the research base for IL: understanding key models and theories (e.g.
Bruce’s (1997) 7 faces model) and being aware of appropriate research
approaches;
• Know the functions and scope of key IL organisations and initiatives in the
student’s country;
• Be aware of the history and origins of IL.

Curriculum for teaching information literacy

Pedagogy and andragogy are significant subjects in their own right, and LIS educators
will probably only be able to cover selected aspects, unless pedagogy is a major focus of
an LIS programme. LIS educators will also want to refer to educational texts of relevance
to specific countries and levels (e.g. Biggs, 2003, would be a good text for educators of
UK academic librarians) as well as specialist LIS texts (e.g. Grassian, 2001; Iannuzzi,
1998; Webb and Powys, 2004). The TUNE (Training of Library Users in a New Europe)
project identified desirable attitudes and personal competencies for librarians: for
example that they should be open-minded, flexible, user-oriented, have social
communication abilities and the ability to work collaboratively (TUNE, 2005). These
may be seen as desirable qualities for all LIS students, but they are certainly essential for
LIS students who are going to teach IL.

The following topics were identified through discussion, and examination of some
existing courses and texts.

1. Curriculum design and planning, including:

• identifying learners’ needs;
• developing appropriate learning outcomes to meet those needs;
• understanding and applying appropriate modes of assessment;
• aligning teaching, learning and assessment in course design;
• understanding appropriate use of technology in designing learning environments;
• evaluating IL courses and training sessions, including those delivered online.

2. Understanding learners and learning theory, including:

• learning models and theories, including learning styles, learning strategies and e-
learning models;
• needs and characteristics of particular types of learner e.g. distance learners, e-
learners, adult learners, learners with special needs;
• information behaviour and IL research providing insight into the conceptions or
educational needs of learners.

3. Understanding basic concepts, theories and practice of teaching, including:

 73

• conceptions of, and approaches to, teaching;

• teaching methods and tools, including use of technology;
• collaborative teaching, including issues concerning collaboration with specific
groups e.g. collaboration between librarians and academics in teaching.

4. Understanding the context for teaching and learning, including:

• awareness of education policy and practice in specific countries/sectors;
• the place of learning in a citizen’s life, and the concept of lifelong learning;
• understanding key issues concerned with teaching IL in particular sectors (e.g.
schools, higher education, companies, museums, health, public libraries);
• understanding issues concerned with the teaching and learner support role of the
librarian;
• understanding the role of IL in relation to other library and information services;
• understanding how LIS professionals can communicate the benefits of IL
education to their users.

The Euroguide Competencies and aptitudes for European information professionals

(European Council of Information Associations, 2004), does include a section M08:
Management of education and training (p56). However, it was agreed by the forum
members that this covers only some of the topics listed above, focusing principally on
management and delivery issues.

Relationship with other LIS subjects

There are links between Information Literacy and other LIS subjects, most notably with
Human Information Behaviour. Some research is important to both areas (e.g. the work
of Kuhlthau) and there are common practical outcomes (e.g. effective information
searching). This may result in, for example, models of information behaviour being
taught in an information literacy class, or elements of both IL and information behaviour
being taught in an information retrieval class. There are also links with management and
marketing (e.g. in identifying user needs, in managing and planning a service, and in
understanding the organisational context and mission). IL has been identified as essential
to Knowledge Management (Abel and Oxbrow, 2001) and could be learnt about in that
context. Issues to do with lifelong learning and educational policies could be taught in
classes concerned with the information society. Additionally, there are some
competencies relevant to teaching IL which may be seen as part of a librarian’s overall
professional competencies e.g. technological competencies; communication skills.

Examples of information literacy practice in LIS curriculum

The participants of the virtual forum described their experiences in the following way; for
example, Susie Andretta from the London Metropolitan University, UK notes:

My experience of IL is that unless it is fully integrated within the LIS curriculum (as a core
element at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels) then its impact will not be as
 74

effective as one would wish. In the School of Information Management at London

Metropolitan University we have introduced IL as part of the research methods module
(which is a core unit of all our pg courses). IL here is complemented by the action research
approach (as these two perspectives promote reiterative and reflective learning) in the
module called: Applied Information Research (AIR) where the independent learning
competences of IL are fully embedded in a real-world research context. The development
of AIR was generated as the result of a consultation exercise with information professionals
where a ‘can do’ attitude was identified as a priority, together with competences in
communication and knowledge of sources. We have interpreted a “can do attitude” as the
development of an independent learning approach because, in our view, this process
necessarily underpins the problem-solving strategies encountered in any information
practice.

In my view being information literate is now a necessity for IPs because it helps them
maintain a lifelong learning attitude (by embracing the learn-how-to-learn approach) that
keeps them abreast of an ever changing information environment, while at the same time it
enables them to develop as facilitators of learning to help other users become information
literate.

The idea of introducing IL as part of the research competences that Information

Professionals (IPs) should develop is fully supported by the literature (Bruce and Moore in
particular advocate this) and from experience it has worked well in fostering independent
learning attitudes in IPs who attend the AIR module. Not surprisingly, evidence have
shown a substantial improvement in students' performance in the dissertation. However, a
totally unintentional (but welcome) outcome generated by the IL practice in AIR is the
increase in the professional confidence that most of our student (especially those working
in public and academic libraries) have experienced as a result of this provision.

Unlike the enthusiastic response that Annette refers to IL in the UK is still not fully
acknowledged as a core element of IPs practices. This is why it is so important to ensure
that IL is fully integrated in any LIS curricula and Continuing Professional Development
policies [forum message, 15/06/05]

Sheila Webber summarises key points about three classes at Sheffield University’s
Department of Information Studies, UK:

One class “Information Literacy” is a level 1 semester 1 compulsory component of our BSc
Information Management. Key learning outcomes are for the students to analyse their own
information behaviour and start to identify ways in which they can become more
information literate, to understand some key information literacy models and theories, and
to develop some specific skills (e.g. oral presentation skills and searching skills). The main
piece of assessed coursework asks the student to reflect on his/her progress in information
literacy, presenting relevant evidence, and using the framework of the SCONUL “7 Pillars
of Information Literacy.” The class involves a large amount of interaction and activity in
pairs and groups. In particular, student groups work over several weeks on the solution to a
meaningful information problem which they then present orally, and also students pair up
to set each other search topics which have to be mindmapped, carried out, documented and
presented as evidence for their assessed work. Following on from this class, information
literacy is progressed at other points in their degree programme. For example, a level 2
class focuses on Information searching and retrieval, and another class which focuses on
 75

knowledge management, where the relevance of information literacy to KM and to the

learning organisation is explored.

Our postgraduate MA Librarianship students have a compulsory module “Information

Resources and Information Literacy” which similarly requires them to reflect on their
achievement in information literacy, and also asks them to carry out a search on a specified
topic and present a bibliography. Later in the course, as one of their optional classes, they
can choose “Educational Informatics”. This introduces key pedagogical principles and
theories, before focusing on issues and tools to do with the use of technology to support
learning, teaching and assessment. Students in this class form groups, each of which
designs a WebCT module, and they also produce written documents relating to this task.

Annette Skov from the Royal School of Library and Information Science in Copenhagen,
Denmark, describes her IL course:

Libraries are facing a number of exiting educational and pedagogical challenges; for
example, lifelong learning and the information literate citizen in the knowledge society. It
is the library sector’s job (+) to support these aims via user education from “craddle to
grave” in collaboration with other stakeholders.

Teaching has become a professional competence, no matter if one is employed as a

childrens’ librarian, an academic librarian, or working in the private sector. The objectives
of this course is to enable students to plan, design and deliver instruction, both in the
physical and in the virtual learning environment. The course has both a theoretical and a
practical aim. The point of departure is theories on learning, learning styles and multiple
intelligences, focusing on their significance for designing learning environments.

Not all developments have been influenced by IL efforts. For example, in Estonia, the
ICT-based education and distance education has directed towards the IL road. For
example, Sirje Virkus from the Department of Information Studies of Tallinn University
notes:

…. since 1994 we have started step by step to develop of our students’ knowledge, skills
and understanding in reflective thinking, critical analysis, problem-solving, learning-to-
learn, teamwork, presentation, etc. and we have presented these efforts at conferences and
in journals talking about ‘new pedagogical models’ or the move from ‘knowledge transfer
model’ to ‘knowledge construction model’ at our department. It meant that we drastically
decreased the amount of lectures and focused more on team-projects requiring problem
solving and on reflective seminars in all areas of curriculum to develop complex cognitive
skills and social competences of our students. However, these ideas derived not from IL
efforts, but rather from educational theories and collaboration with high level DE centres
and institutions (for example, Pennsylvania State University, University of New
Brunswick, the Dutch Open University, EADTU) and experts (for example, Michael
Moore, Elizabeth Burge, Martin Valcke, Rob Koper, etc.) when the Department started to
develop its DE programmes based on modern ICT.

Thus, being influenced by constructivist and reflective thinking (Jonassen, Schön, etc.) and
alternative modes of educational delivery we started to rethink our curriculum, our
pedagogical or didactic models but we didn’t think then in terms of IL. We started close
cooperation with the department of educational sciences and computer sciences in
 76

developing joint project proposals and arranging joint research seminars and it influenced
our thinking as well. Thus, I should confess that focus on distance learning and virtual
learning environments influenced our understanding of new ways of curriculum design.
Our own university supported this approach, finding that products like WebCT or
Blackboard has no constructivist logic built in and our Educational Technology Centre
developed learning management system IVA based on open source and derived from the so
called ‘three Cs model’ of Jonassen (Context, Collaboration, Construction) that fosters the
constructive way of learning and teaching. Andragogy (taught by the Chair of Andragogy
within the Department of Educational Sciences) and user education have been in our LIS
curriculum more than 15 years.

Thus, now we can talk about the following aims of our curriculum:
a) to foster graduates to achieve qualifications and competencies needed for work in
information sector;
b) to foster our students to become information literate and to undertake research;
c) to foster the development of knowledge, skills and attitudes needed for facilitating IL
[forum message, 20/06/05]

It should be also noted that there are several other examples of IL practice even those
were not described very precisely in the virtual forum. For example “Information
Literacy Instruction: Theory and Practice" class is offered at University College Dublin.
Claire McGuinness notes:

"This course aims to introduce students to the theoretical foundations of pedagogy, and to
explore with them, the various instructional options that are available to the “teaching
librarian” in the modern context. Students will learn about the planning, design, delivery
and assessment of information literacy instructional programmes, with the aim of preparing
them for the type of teaching work they may undertake as part of their jobs."

Communication and networks for LIS educators in this domain

It should be noted that there is no European or international organization, institution or

association for LIS educators whose main concern is IL within the LIS curriculum.
However, many organizations, networks and associations at a global, regional and
national level have promoted the issue of IL and made an invaluable contribution, both to
thinking about IL and to the development of LIS curricula with an IL component.
Communication and networking is also supported by many international projects,
conferences and discussion lists. Thus, LIS educators in Europe have been active in IL
initiatives in Europe as well as internationally (Virkus, 2003).

Perhaps, the best-known intergovernmental organization that has started the promotion of
IL in the context of its Information for All Programme (IFAP) is the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). During the 8th meeting of
the Bureau of the Intergovernmental Council for the Information for All Programme, at
UNESCO Headquarters in Paris, a Thematic Debate on Information Literacy took place
on 5 April 2005. The purpose of the debate was to identify the particular contribution that
IFAP could make to give all people the opportunity to become information literate. With
 77

the support of UNESCO several major IL initiatives have been arranged; for example, the
Information Literacy Meeting of Experts in Prague in September 2003, UNESCO was
also a co-sponsor of an international leadership colloquium on IL, which was held in
Alexandria, Egypt, November 6–9, 2005.

UNESCO’s main strategy in the area of IL consists of awareness-raising about the

importance of IL at all levels of the education process – basic education, primary and
secondary education, technical and vocational training and lifelong education – and of
establishing guidelines for integrating IL issues in curricula. A particular focus will be on
training teachers to sensitize them to the importance of IL in the education process to
enable them to incorporate IL into their teaching and to provide them with appropriate
pedagogical methods and curricula. European LIS educators have been invited as major
experts to the meetings in Prague and in Paris.
The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) focused its
concerns regarding the teaching of IL through the establishment of a Roundtable on User
Education in 1993. At their meeting during the IFLA Boston conference in August 2002,
the Round Table changed its name to the Information Literacy Section. The primary
purpose of the IL Section is to foster international cooperation in the development of IL
education in all types of libraries. The Section focuses on all aspects of IL including user
education, learning styles, the use of computers and media in teaching and learning,
networked resources, partnerships with teaching faculty in the development of
instructional programmes, distance education, and the training of librarians in teaching
information and technical skills. It is the mission of the Section to disseminate
information on IL programmes and trends and work closely with other IFLA bodies and
other organizations in the development of programmes, workshops and projects related to
IL education. Again, European LIS educators participate actively in this section.
There are also some international associations with IL interests groups (for example,
International Association of School Librarianship (IASL)
Information Literacy Special Interest Group) but European LIS educators are not actively
involved in those groups. Upon a recommendation from the Prague Meeting of
Information Literacy Experts several organizations (e.g. Australian and New Zealand
Institute for Information Literacy (ANZIIL), US National Forum on Information
Literacy, NORDINFOlit, SCONUL Working Group on Information Literacy, etc.) are
committing to creating an International Alliance for Information Literacy. The evolving
purpose for the Alliance is to facilitate the sharing of information and expertise on IL
across regions and nations of the world. The Alliance will consist of organizations that
act as nodes around the world (National Forum on Information Literacy, 2005).

Professional organizations and associations in a number of countries or representing

specific regions of the world have promoted the importance of IL. For example, in the
USA, Australia and New Zealand professional associations have made an invaluable
contribution to thinking about IL and contributed towards IL practice and developed
standards and recommendations that have been influential both nationally and
internationally. In Europe, the European Union has taken various initiatives supporting
networking and communication in the IL area, though the lack of coherent and long-term
policy is clear. For example, several IL projects with the involvement of European LIS
 78

educators have been funded by the EC – EDUCATE, DEDICATE, LOCOMOTIVE,

DELCIS, etc. (Virkus, 2003).

There are also various IL initiatives in Europe where LIS educators are participating; for
example, European Network for Information Literacy (ENIL) - a network of researchers
focused on creating a common research agenda and exchanging best practices on IL; the
European Network for School Libraries and Information Literacy (ENSIL); Library and
Learning Support Working Group (LLSWG) of European Association of Distance
Teaching Universities (EADTU) – a network for exchanging best practice and facilitating
IL in European ODL institutions, the Nordic Forum for Information Literacy
(NORDINFOlit) - a cooperative initiative of Nordic countries in the field of IL (Virkus,
2003).

At national level professional institutions and organizations in several countries have

included IL in their agenda. For example, in UK, the Society of College, National and
University Libraries (SCONUL) and the Chartered Institute of Library and Information
Professionals (CILIP) have been the main promoters.

Several organizations and interest groups in Sweden work on and discuss the subject, for
example Svensk Biblioteksförening with a special group for pedagogical issues at the
library. In Denmark a number of special interest groups focus on IL. In the Netherlands,
for example, LWSVO (National Workgroup of School Librarians in Secondary
Education) assists school librarians in implementation of new developments in the school
and school library. In Spain a working group on IL issues was set up in Cataluña under
the name ALFINCAT. It includes a wide membership from other regions to exchange
ideas, approaches and good practice, and the advancement and promotion of the IL
agenda (Virkus, 2003). These are just few examples of national IL activities where LIS
educators have been involved. The main activities of national institutions and
organizations have been to arrange conferences and seminars, to share experiences and to
facilitate thinking about IL among professionals.

Professional associations of LIS educators such as the European Association for Library
and Information Education and Research (EUCLID) have recently started to pay more
attention to IL issues as well. IL and learning is regarded as one main interest area within
the LIS curriculum in the framework of the project "LIS Education in Europe: Joint
Curriculum Development and Bologna Perspectives". However, it should be also noted
that even the Bologna process has influenced several structural changes in European LIS
education and also supported many earlier developments, its influence on the
development of IL has not been significant.

Research agenda for information literacy and LIS curriculum

Several institutions, organizations (ACRL, 1980, 2000) and researchers (Bruce, 1997,
Breivik, 2000) have proposed a research agenda for IL. For example, the ACRL
Instruction Section (IS) Research and Scholarship Committee updated the document (the
 79

Research Agenda for Bibliographic Instruction by the ACRL Bibliographic Instruction

Section (BIS) Research Committee, published in 1980) in 2000 and identified important
research areas relevant to library instruction programmes in the current environment
including IL. The Research Agenda for Library Instruction and Information Literacy was
organized into four main sections: Learners, Teaching, Organizational Context, and
Assessment. Each section poses general questions with the goal of encouraging those
interested - practitioners, researchers, and students alike - to conduct research around
these important areas.

Breivik (2000, p. xi-xii) identified a number of key issues that must be addressed if IL
efforts are to be more effective and more extensive in the future. There was no evidence
of mapping the research needed in the area of IL and LIS curriculum. However, the
general areas reflected in the ACRL Agenda, as well as those identified by IL
researchers, are also relevant to the LIS education domain. For example, to mention only
a few:
• investigating the effectiveness of different methods of instruction for addressing
various learning styles;
• understanding the impact of the Internet, as a teaching tool, on learning styles, and
the implications for IL;
• investigating whether the structure and delivery of instruction differ when
organized according to goals or concepts such as lifelong learning, subject-based
teaching, course-integrated instruction, course-related instruction, or credit-
bearing library courses;
• exploring how an institution can ensure that librarians participating in IL efforts
have the knowledge and skills to make the programme successful.

Thus, research into IL, and research in the educational domain in general, have a great
impact on how we integrate/embed IL into LIS curriculum and facilitate both our LIS
students’ own learning in information literacy and these students’ learning of how to
facilitate others’ information literacy.

Conclusions and recommendations

The following conclusions emerged from the discussion by some 18 participants:

• The working definition of IL in the framework of the LIS curriculum should be
broad, and can be seen as an umbrella definition that includes many other
literacies and implies business as well as private life in the context of lifelong
independent and flexible learning.
• A broad definition of IL from the Prague Declaration, the CILIP, the ALA,
Webber and Johnston or Boekhorst was the most useful in general and as a
working definition for the forum.
• IL is absolutely critical literacy to all sectors of society that enables people to
cope successfully in their professional and personal lives and benefit from the
knowledge society.
 80

• IL is an ongoing process that should be facilitated throughout a whole life.

Becoming information literate should start at home, continue at primary school
and be a part of formal training in all phases and all subject areas during the
whole education process as a preparation for lifelong learning.
• Library and information professionals have a special role in the process in which
people become information literate. Thus, they have to learn to do this effectively.
• It is essential for LIS students: (a) to be aware of IL as a concept (b) to become
information literate themselves (c) to learn about some key aspects of teaching IL.
• IL itself may be taught in different ways: through a separate class, or may be
covered explicitly in one or more other LIS classes, or may be seen as an
approach to learning which is used in another class, or may be addressed as part
of a class which focuses on how to teach IL.
• Decisions on which option is adopted will be based on factors such as: the
objectives of the whole programme, the length of the programme, the
national/institutional context and priorities, the nature of the student body, and the
teacher’s pedagogic approach and philosophy.
• Whatever the model preferred, the essence of IL and constructivist approaches to
learning and teaching should be reflected.
• The depth of coverage of IL topics will vary depending on the nature of the
course. However, key topics for IL can de defined.
• There are no European or international organizations, institutions or associations
for LIS educators which main concern is IL within the LIS curriculum. However,
many organizations, networks and associations at global, regional and national
level have promoted the issue of IL and made an invaluable contribution to
thinking about IL as well as the development of LIS curriculum with IL
component and European LIS educators have been active in those.
• Research into IL, and in the educational domain in general, have a great impact on
how we integrate/embed IL into LIS curriculum and facilitate both our LIS
students’ own learning in information literacy and these students’ learning of how
to facilitate others’ information literacy. However, the research agenda for IL and
LIS curriculum still needs to be developed.

The following recommendations emerged:

• Promote and share experiences of good practice that stimulate LIS schools to
integrate or embed IL into the LIS curriculum.
• Encourage collaboration amongst LIS educators to ensure IL is appropriately
recognized as an essential element within the LIS curriculum
• Encourage coordination and collaboration with relevant international
organizations, institutions or associations which concern is IL to avoid
duplications and to create synergy.
 81

References

Abel, A. and Oxbrow, N. (2001). Competing with knowledge: the information

professional in the knowledge management age. London: Library Association.
ACRL BIS Research Committee (1980). Research Agenda for Bibliographic Instruction.
Retrieved 14 October 2005 from:
http://www.ala.org/ala/acrlbucket/is/iscommittees/webpages/research/researchagend
abibliographic.htm
ACRL IS Research and Scholarship Committee (2000). Research Agenda for Library
Instruction and Information Literacy. Retrieved 14 October 2005 from:
http://www.ala.org/ala/acrlbucket/is/iscommittees/webpages/research/researchagend
alibrary.htm
American Library Association (1998). A Progress Report on Information Literacy: An
Update on the American Library Association Presidential Committee on
Information Literacy: Final Report. American Library Association, Chicago.
Retrieved 15 October 2005 from:
http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlpubs/whitepapers/progressreport.htm.
Association of College and Research Libraries. (2000). Information Literacy
Competency Standards for Higher Education. Chicago, American Library
Association. Retrieved 15 October 2005 from:
http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlstandards/informationliteracycompetency.htm
Biggs, J. B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at University. 2nd ed. Milton Keynes:
OU/SRHE.
Boekhorst, A. K. (2003a). Becoming information literate in the Netherlands. Library
Review, 52 (7), 298-309.
Boekhorst, A. K. (2003b). Information Literacy in The Netherlands. On becoming
Information Literate in The Netherlands. In: Carla Basili (ed) Information Literacy
in Europe: a first insight into the state of the art of Information Literacy in the
European Union. Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, 187-205.
Breivik, P. S. (2000). Foreword. In: Bruce, C. and Candy, P. (eds) Information literacy
around the world: advances in programs and research. Wagga Wagga: Charles
Sturt University.
Bruce, C. (1997). The seven faces of information literacy. Adelaide: Auslib Press.
Bundy, A. (Ed.) (2004). Australian and New Zealand Information Literacy Framework:
principles, standards and practice. (2nd ed.) Adelaide: Australian and New
Zealand Institute for Information Literacy. Retrieved 15 February 2004 from
http://www.anziil.org/resources/Info%20lit%202nd%20edition.pdf
Candy, P. C., Crebert, G. and O'Leary, J. (1994). Developing lifelong learners through
undergraduate education. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government Printing
Service.
CILIP (2005) Information Literacy: definition. London: CILIP. Retrieved 30 October
2005 from
http://www.cilip.org.uk/professionalguidance/informationliteracy/definition/
 82

European Council of Information Associations. (2004) Euroguide LIS: Volume 1:

Competencies and aptitudes for European information professionals. Paris:
ADBS Editions. Retrieved 15 October 2005 from:
http://www.certidoc.net/en/euref1-english.pdf
Grassian, E. and Kaplowitz, J. (Eds) (2001). Information Literacy Instruction: Theory
and Practice. New York: Neal-Schuman.
Homann, B. (2002). Standards der Informationskompetenz: eine Übersetzung der
amerikanischen Standards der ACRL als argumentative Hilfe zur Realisierung der
‘Teaching Library’. Bibliotheksdienst, 36 (5), 625-638. Retrieved 15 October
2005 from: http://bibliotheksdienst.zlb.de/2002/02_05_07.pdf
Iannuzzi, P.; Mangrum, C. and Strichart, S. (1998). Teaching Information Literacy Skills.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Information Literacy Meeting of Experts. (2003). The Prague declaration: Towards an
information literate society. National Commission on Library and Information
Science; National Forum on Information Literacy & UNESCO. Retrieved 15
October 2005 from: http://www.nclis.gov/libinter/infolitconf&meet/post-
infolitconf&meet/post-infolitconf&meet.html
National Forum on Information Literacy. Retrieved 15 October 2005 from:
http://www.infolit.org/IAIL/
SCONUL Task Force on Information Skills (1999). Information Skills in Higher
Education. London: Society of College, National and University Libraries.
UNE: Training of library Users in a New Europe. (2005) Ideas from café I:
Competencies. Retrieved 15 October 2005 from:
http://www.tune.eu.com/Power%20Point/N-ideas-from-Cafe-I.pps
Virkus, S. (2003). Information literacy in Europe: a literature review. Information
Research, 8(4), paper no. 159. Retrieved 10 October 2005 from:
http://informationr.net/ir/8-4/paper159.html]
Webb, J. and Powys, C. (2004). Teaching information skills: theory and practice.
London: Facet.
Johnston, B. and Webber, S. (2003). Information Literacy in Higher Education: a review
and case study. Studies in Higher Education, 28 (3), 335-352.

Web addresses of IL organisations (all retrieved 30 October 2005)

ACRL Institute for IL:
http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlissues/acrlinfolit/professactivity/iil/welcome.htm
AlfinCat: http://www.cobdc.org/grups/alfincat/
ANZIIL: http://www.anziil.org/
CILIP CSG IL Group:
http://www.cilip.org.uk/specialinterestgroups/bysubject/informationliteracy
ENIL: http://www.ceris.cnr.it/Basili/EnIL/index.html
ENSIL: http://vs.eun.org/eun.org2/eun/en/vs-Library_vs/sub_area.cfm?sa=3937&row=1
IFLA Information Literacy Section: http://www.ifla.org/VII/s42/index.htm
NORDINFOlit: http://www.nordinfolit.org/
SCONUL WGIL: http://www.sconul.ac.uk/activities/inf_lit/
Svensk Biblioteksförenings specialgrupp för bibliotekspedagogik:
http://www.biblioteksforeningen.org/
 83

APPENDIX, Participants of the workshops “Information Literacy and

Learning”
Leader of the Workshops
Sirje Virkus, Department of Information Studies, Tallinn University, Estonia,
sirvir@tpu.ee

Experts of the Workshop Group

Albert K. Boekhorst, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands; University of Pretoria,
South Africa, A.K.Boekhorst@uva.nl
José A. Gomez-Hernandez, Library and Information Science Department, Faculty of
Information and Communication Studies, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain
jgomez@um.es
Annette Skov, Royal School of Library and Information Science, Copenhagen, Denmark,
AS@db.dk
Sheila Webber, Department of Information Studies, Sheffield University, United
Kingdom, s.webber@sheffield.ac.uk

Experts of the Virtual Workshop Group

Susie Andretta, Information Management School, London Metropolitan University,
United Kingdom, s.andretta@londonmet.ac.uk
David Bawden, Department of Information Science, City University London, United
Kingdom, db@soi.city.ac.uk
Sylvie Chevillotte, ENSSIB (Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Sciences de líInformation et
des Bibliothèques), Villeurbanne, France, chevillo@enssib.fr
Bill Johnston, Centre for Academic Practice, the University of Strathclyde, United
Kingdom, B.Johnston@strath.ac.uk
Claire McGuinness, University College Dublin, Republic of Ireland,
claire.mcguinness@ucd.ie
Eva Ortoll Espinet, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, IN3, Barcelona, Spain,
eortoll@uoc.edu
Cristóbal Pasadas Ureña, Faculty of Psychology, University of Granada, Granada, Spain,
cpasadas@ugr.es
Margarita Perez-Pulido, Department of Informatics, University of Extremadura, Badajoz,
Spain, marga@alcazaba.unex.es
Bernard Pochet, Gembloux Agricultural University, Belgium, Pochet.B@fsagx.ac.be
Giovanni Solimine, Viterbo University, Viterbo, Italy, solimine@unitus.it
Tibor Koltay, Department of Information and Library Studies, Szent István University
Jászberényi College; Department of Library and Information Science Berzsenyi Dániel
College, Hungary, Koltay.Tibor@jfk.szie.hu
Paul Thirion, Faculty of Psychology and Education Science of the University of Liège,
Belgium, paul.thirion@ulg.ac.be

View publication stats